Reading American history is making me impartial?

Question

to the republicans and democrats. I'm feeling like the definitions have changed so many times over the years, as did the goals of each party, that is impossible to take these parties seriously. Anybody feel that way too?

* Randy, do you envision that in the distant future, the neighborhood council of governing would be the most appropriate way of government?

Answer 1

Welcome to the real world and not the illusionary spin created by the two major political parties.

The founders did not want political parties, or as they referred to them, “factions.” They envisioned a world in which regional local interest would rule the day. They viewed the legislatures of each State, and the State elected members of the federal government, as promoting the interests of the people of each State. They knew that when political organizational commitments crossed State borders the strength of the federal government would grow with the danger that such growth would exceed the delegated powers. Time has proven such concerns as real.

We should keep in mind that the Founders created a federal government meant to keep power separated between the three federal branches. That the total power of the federal government would be checked by the sovereign States. That no elected federal position was meant to be popularly elected except in the most narrowest of senses with House members elected by small districts. The federal Senators were selected by State legislatures. That the president was selected by delegates to the Electoral College, not the popular vote.

All of this was protection from a democratically elected federal government which the Founders believed (knew) is a form of mob rule and would eventually lead to dictatorship. Political parties are a part of traveling down that road. Political parties exist only to amass power to the political party.

Time has proven these concerns to be true. The political party process is in part placing political hacks in office who are loyal only to their political party. The way to look at this is to first understand that our country has many very worthy people, but of those who go through the political process, how many would you invite into your home. Or, How many would you use as role models for your children.

Since the worthy individuals rarely come through the party process, and primarily the worse (short of out and out criminals) of our society rise to the top of the political party system, why would anyone have any respect for it.

Of those who are involved in the political process, just ask yourself, “which follow the delegated powers of the Constitution.” Just use Article I, Section 8, Clauses 1 through 18 as the guide line for what elected members of the Congress are limited to do. Augment that by applying the restrictions placed on Congress by the 10 Articles of the Bill of Rights, then, ask yourself is that individual worthy of my respect or vote.

Answer 2

You are correct,both parties have changed so much through out the years.If President John F. Kennedy were alive today he would now be considered a republican.I base my vote on the person now and not the party.Altho I was a registered Democrat,I did remove myself from that party..,far too left anymore.Seems almost on the verge of marxism.They are more for socialized medicine and more govt programs and interfering with personal choices..,Ie..,smoking,the foods we eat,etc.

Answer 3

Yea I discovered that too. It makes sense if you think about it though, different issues from different time periods create different party platforms. Plus there was less tradition back then so one party didn't feel compelled to support or disagree with an issue solely on party precedent (because there was none)

Answer 4

One thing in this world we can depend on is that "Change"

Answer 5

We have no friends, America has only interests.

Answer 6

You can call them either RepubliCrats or DemiCans.